Saturday Briefs

The first internet version of the Sacramento Bee article by Lakiesha McGee contained a very inaccurate description of County Supervisor Mariko Yamada’s announcement event in Woodland on Wednesday at noon.

That version read:

“Yamada told a crowd of mostly reporters gathered at the steps of the Yolo County courthouse in Woodland that she plans to focus on supporting working families.”

That description accurately described West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon’s announcement in Davis in January. However, it was far from accurate in describing Yamada’s event which had as many as fifty members of the public in the audience, in addition to a number of elected officials behind the podium with her.

The print version would later correct this after the Yamada Campaign complained. That version reads:

“Yamada told a crowd gathered at the steps of the Yolo County courthouse in Woodland that, if elected, she will continue to focus on supporting working families.”

Of course there was no acknowledgment of the error and anyone who read only the initial internet version would get a misleading picture.

Good letter in support of keeping Valley Oak Elementary School Open

This is from the Friday March 2, 2007 Davis Enterprise

Tax ourselves to keep school open

How could a town such as Davis, whose primary identity and attractiveness is squarely based on its superior school system, even consider closing a successful neighborhood elementary school? People decide to pay the enormous premiums on housing to live in Davis for one primary reason: superior public education.

Valley Oak is a superior school, even for Davis. Valley Oak is a neighborhood school successfully serving the most economically and ethnically diverse section of Davis with the most successful English learner program in Davis.

Everyone knows there is a gap between the projected school budget and the cost of running the schools, not as a result of the schools, their teachers, students and parents, but because of the management of the schools by the school board in its incorrect assessment of enrollment projections some years ago.

For this fault of others, and no fault of their own, a unique, thriving, exemplary elementary school serving the most in need of special educational resources has been targeted to close, and by doing so dispersing its educational community, disassembling its parent-teacher organization, scattering its student body, breaking up friendships and study circles and depriving an intact neighborhood of its primary unifying institution.

How clever. How much easier, less courageous, less inventive and principled than in seeking additional and reallocated resources — and by doing the right thing by and from all its citizens.

By closing Valley Oak, what a clear and unequivocal signal the school system would be sending not only to the Valley Oak community, but to all lower-income families and ethnic minorities: When push comes to shove, yes, even in dear good Davis, money counts, race counts here, too. Those that have it get more; those that don’t, well, maybe some other time.

Davis can afford its public schools; we are wealthier than we admit. No one will have any less of a comfortable life if we tax ourselves an additional $25, even $50 per household to ensure all public school are fully funded. The only real question is: Are we as decent as we are wealthy? We will soon find out.

Peter London

Freddie Oakley to Be Honored by Gay Rights Group

The Davis Enterprise also on March 2, 2007 reports that Yolo County Clerk and Recorder Freddie Oakley will be honored by the Sacramento Gay & Lesbian Center. She will receive the “Building Bridges Award.”

According to the article:

The award is given to an individual who has shown leadership in fostering positive relationships between diverse communities in pursuit of equal rights for all, said Lester Neblett, executive director of the Sacramento Gay & Lesbian Center.

“By issuing symbolic ‘Certificates of Inequality’ to same-sex couples who are denied the right to marry, and doing so at her own expense and on her own time, Ms. Oakley made a tremendously courageous stand,” Neblett said.

“Through her actions, she acknowledged the inherent unfairness of denying gay and lesbian people the right to marry the persons they love and denying gay families the huge number of legal rights, protections and financial benefits that go along with marriage.

“Although Ms. Oakley herself is straight and happily married, her actions built a bridge between the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and all Californians who support equal rights.”

Freddie Oakley has come under fire for her involvement in the issuance of Certificates of Inequality; however, many support her for her courage.

The Sacramento City Unified School District board voted Thursday to form a citizens committee to brainstorm new names for the [C.M. Goethe Middle School] after officials learned of Goethe’s lesser-known, dark side as a national leader in the eugenics movement.

What caught my attention though was this line:

[Sacramento City] Councilman Kevin McCarty still finds the Goethe story unsettling. “I didn’t even know what eugenics meant until a month ago,” he said.

Not to make too much out of this, but I find it somewhat alarming that an elected City Councilmember of a city of the size of Sacramento had never known what “eugenics” was until recently. Of course that is not nearly as alarming as being told that a former Police Chief in Solano County had never heard of New Zealand.

Free Film on 9-11

Mark Graham of Davis wrote me a few days ago that he had a film on 9-11 that he would make available to the public for free.

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

The Calbadon endorsers are faced with a Hobson’s choice as Yamada’s campaign gains steam. Her campaign will roll right over Calbadon and will they abandon him(as their Democratic constituents flock to Yamada) and look two-faced or ride a losing horse to the finish line? Their solution? for now, lay it on Yamada and PRAY that she gives up under the pressure… we know Mariko… no way.. Watch for those Calbadon supporters to back off and become neutral or outright Yamada people in the near future.

The Calbadon endorsers are faced with a Hobson’s choice as Yamada’s campaign gains steam. Her campaign will roll right over Calbadon and will they abandon him(as their Democratic constituents flock to Yamada) and look two-faced or ride a losing horse to the finish line? Their solution? for now, lay it on Yamada and PRAY that she gives up under the pressure… we know Mariko… no way.. Watch for those Calbadon supporters to back off and become neutral or outright Yamada people in the near future.

The Calbadon endorsers are faced with a Hobson’s choice as Yamada’s campaign gains steam. Her campaign will roll right over Calbadon and will they abandon him(as their Democratic constituents flock to Yamada) and look two-faced or ride a losing horse to the finish line? Their solution? for now, lay it on Yamada and PRAY that she gives up under the pressure… we know Mariko… no way.. Watch for those Calbadon supporters to back off and become neutral or outright Yamada people in the near future.

The Calbadon endorsers are faced with a Hobson’s choice as Yamada’s campaign gains steam. Her campaign will roll right over Calbadon and will they abandon him(as their Democratic constituents flock to Yamada) and look two-faced or ride a losing horse to the finish line? Their solution? for now, lay it on Yamada and PRAY that she gives up under the pressure… we know Mariko… no way.. Watch for those Calbadon supporters to back off and become neutral or outright Yamada people in the near future.

Not to make too much out of this, but I find it somewhat alarming that an elected City Councilmember of a city of the size of Sacramento had never known what “eugenics” was until recently.

Eugenics is a pretty wide field. Other than the Francis Galton-eugenics movement and later the Nazi-eugenics, I plead ignorance about most strains of it. Maybe Kevin McCarty knows as little as I know about it. Perhaps you are in the same boat.

While Charles Goethe — who I guess was of German heritage (his last name is not pronounced the same way as the poet/philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) — was influenced in his thinking by the Nazis, most Americans who advocated “eugenics” were not. And while the Galton-eugenicists were arguably racists, they were no more so racists than most of their contemporaries. American and Europe were, alas, very much racist places one hundred years ago.

As such, I don’t think a person who was a pre-Nazi advocate of eugenics should be remembered solely for that, and doomed to never be honored for other worthy achievements. If we did that, we could not honor Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, Luther Burbank and many other otherwise great people.

Even though I am a Jew, I feel the same way about anti-Semites, who otherwise were admirable. Henry Ford was a great man. He built a great company and helped establish the United States as the foremost industrial power in the world. He also employed thousands of people and through his riches has helped many more. But he was a rabid anti-Semite. Should no school, no park, no landmark honor Henry Ford because of his loathing of the Jews? I don’t think so. I think he should first be seen in the context of his times — most Christians then were, to one degree or another, anti-Semitic — and second he should be honored with an asterisk, explaining that while he was a great man, he was also wrong about the Jews.

Maybe things that honor Charles Goethe should be renamed. (I really don’t know too much about him.) But I don’t think it makes sense to remove honors from people who were seen as great in their times, but who now look questionable given the changes in societal norms and values.

Also, I think by keeping those names in place, but adding an asterisk, we do more to teach the fuller picture about our collective history than we would by erasing all buildings named after people who owned slaves, hated Jews, or advocated eugenics.

Not to make too much out of this, but I find it somewhat alarming that an elected City Councilmember of a city of the size of Sacramento had never known what “eugenics” was until recently.

Eugenics is a pretty wide field. Other than the Francis Galton-eugenics movement and later the Nazi-eugenics, I plead ignorance about most strains of it. Maybe Kevin McCarty knows as little as I know about it. Perhaps you are in the same boat.

While Charles Goethe — who I guess was of German heritage (his last name is not pronounced the same way as the poet/philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) — was influenced in his thinking by the Nazis, most Americans who advocated “eugenics” were not. And while the Galton-eugenicists were arguably racists, they were no more so racists than most of their contemporaries. American and Europe were, alas, very much racist places one hundred years ago.

As such, I don’t think a person who was a pre-Nazi advocate of eugenics should be remembered solely for that, and doomed to never be honored for other worthy achievements. If we did that, we could not honor Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, Luther Burbank and many other otherwise great people.

Even though I am a Jew, I feel the same way about anti-Semites, who otherwise were admirable. Henry Ford was a great man. He built a great company and helped establish the United States as the foremost industrial power in the world. He also employed thousands of people and through his riches has helped many more. But he was a rabid anti-Semite. Should no school, no park, no landmark honor Henry Ford because of his loathing of the Jews? I don’t think so. I think he should first be seen in the context of his times — most Christians then were, to one degree or another, anti-Semitic — and second he should be honored with an asterisk, explaining that while he was a great man, he was also wrong about the Jews.

Maybe things that honor Charles Goethe should be renamed. (I really don’t know too much about him.) But I don’t think it makes sense to remove honors from people who were seen as great in their times, but who now look questionable given the changes in societal norms and values.

Also, I think by keeping those names in place, but adding an asterisk, we do more to teach the fuller picture about our collective history than we would by erasing all buildings named after people who owned slaves, hated Jews, or advocated eugenics.

Not to make too much out of this, but I find it somewhat alarming that an elected City Councilmember of a city of the size of Sacramento had never known what “eugenics” was until recently.

Eugenics is a pretty wide field. Other than the Francis Galton-eugenics movement and later the Nazi-eugenics, I plead ignorance about most strains of it. Maybe Kevin McCarty knows as little as I know about it. Perhaps you are in the same boat.

While Charles Goethe — who I guess was of German heritage (his last name is not pronounced the same way as the poet/philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) — was influenced in his thinking by the Nazis, most Americans who advocated “eugenics” were not. And while the Galton-eugenicists were arguably racists, they were no more so racists than most of their contemporaries. American and Europe were, alas, very much racist places one hundred years ago.

As such, I don’t think a person who was a pre-Nazi advocate of eugenics should be remembered solely for that, and doomed to never be honored for other worthy achievements. If we did that, we could not honor Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, Luther Burbank and many other otherwise great people.

Even though I am a Jew, I feel the same way about anti-Semites, who otherwise were admirable. Henry Ford was a great man. He built a great company and helped establish the United States as the foremost industrial power in the world. He also employed thousands of people and through his riches has helped many more. But he was a rabid anti-Semite. Should no school, no park, no landmark honor Henry Ford because of his loathing of the Jews? I don’t think so. I think he should first be seen in the context of his times — most Christians then were, to one degree or another, anti-Semitic — and second he should be honored with an asterisk, explaining that while he was a great man, he was also wrong about the Jews.

Maybe things that honor Charles Goethe should be renamed. (I really don’t know too much about him.) But I don’t think it makes sense to remove honors from people who were seen as great in their times, but who now look questionable given the changes in societal norms and values.

Also, I think by keeping those names in place, but adding an asterisk, we do more to teach the fuller picture about our collective history than we would by erasing all buildings named after people who owned slaves, hated Jews, or advocated eugenics.

Not to make too much out of this, but I find it somewhat alarming that an elected City Councilmember of a city of the size of Sacramento had never known what “eugenics” was until recently.

Eugenics is a pretty wide field. Other than the Francis Galton-eugenics movement and later the Nazi-eugenics, I plead ignorance about most strains of it. Maybe Kevin McCarty knows as little as I know about it. Perhaps you are in the same boat.

While Charles Goethe — who I guess was of German heritage (his last name is not pronounced the same way as the poet/philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) — was influenced in his thinking by the Nazis, most Americans who advocated “eugenics” were not. And while the Galton-eugenicists were arguably racists, they were no more so racists than most of their contemporaries. American and Europe were, alas, very much racist places one hundred years ago.

As such, I don’t think a person who was a pre-Nazi advocate of eugenics should be remembered solely for that, and doomed to never be honored for other worthy achievements. If we did that, we could not honor Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, Luther Burbank and many other otherwise great people.

Even though I am a Jew, I feel the same way about anti-Semites, who otherwise were admirable. Henry Ford was a great man. He built a great company and helped establish the United States as the foremost industrial power in the world. He also employed thousands of people and through his riches has helped many more. But he was a rabid anti-Semite. Should no school, no park, no landmark honor Henry Ford because of his loathing of the Jews? I don’t think so. I think he should first be seen in the context of his times — most Christians then were, to one degree or another, anti-Semitic — and second he should be honored with an asterisk, explaining that while he was a great man, he was also wrong about the Jews.

Maybe things that honor Charles Goethe should be renamed. (I really don’t know too much about him.) But I don’t think it makes sense to remove honors from people who were seen as great in their times, but who now look questionable given the changes in societal norms and values.

Also, I think by keeping those names in place, but adding an asterisk, we do more to teach the fuller picture about our collective history than we would by erasing all buildings named after people who owned slaves, hated Jews, or advocated eugenics.

“And while the Galton-eugenicists were arguably racists, they were no more so racists than most of their contemporaries.”

Let me clarify this, as best I understand their thinking.

In the era of Francis Galton (who was a cousin of Charles Darwin), widespread eugenics movements grew up to advance “the survival of the fittest” humans. For most, I don’t believe that “fitness” equated to the white race. Rather, they were advocating the sterilization of the retarded, dimwits, some criminals, psychotics and people who had genetic diseases or disorders. They also pushed the laws that forbade first cousins and siblings from marrying and so on. However, because society at large was itself so racist, a lot of what advocates of eugenics wanted amounted to attacks on racial or ethnic minorities, particularly (in America) against poor European immigrants. (I would guess against blacks, too, but I don’t know enough about the subject to say for sure.)

“And while the Galton-eugenicists were arguably racists, they were no more so racists than most of their contemporaries.”

Let me clarify this, as best I understand their thinking.

In the era of Francis Galton (who was a cousin of Charles Darwin), widespread eugenics movements grew up to advance “the survival of the fittest” humans. For most, I don’t believe that “fitness” equated to the white race. Rather, they were advocating the sterilization of the retarded, dimwits, some criminals, psychotics and people who had genetic diseases or disorders. They also pushed the laws that forbade first cousins and siblings from marrying and so on. However, because society at large was itself so racist, a lot of what advocates of eugenics wanted amounted to attacks on racial or ethnic minorities, particularly (in America) against poor European immigrants. (I would guess against blacks, too, but I don’t know enough about the subject to say for sure.)

“And while the Galton-eugenicists were arguably racists, they were no more so racists than most of their contemporaries.”

Let me clarify this, as best I understand their thinking.

In the era of Francis Galton (who was a cousin of Charles Darwin), widespread eugenics movements grew up to advance “the survival of the fittest” humans. For most, I don’t believe that “fitness” equated to the white race. Rather, they were advocating the sterilization of the retarded, dimwits, some criminals, psychotics and people who had genetic diseases or disorders. They also pushed the laws that forbade first cousins and siblings from marrying and so on. However, because society at large was itself so racist, a lot of what advocates of eugenics wanted amounted to attacks on racial or ethnic minorities, particularly (in America) against poor European immigrants. (I would guess against blacks, too, but I don’t know enough about the subject to say for sure.)

“And while the Galton-eugenicists were arguably racists, they were no more so racists than most of their contemporaries.”

Let me clarify this, as best I understand their thinking.

In the era of Francis Galton (who was a cousin of Charles Darwin), widespread eugenics movements grew up to advance “the survival of the fittest” humans. For most, I don’t believe that “fitness” equated to the white race. Rather, they were advocating the sterilization of the retarded, dimwits, some criminals, psychotics and people who had genetic diseases or disorders. They also pushed the laws that forbade first cousins and siblings from marrying and so on. However, because society at large was itself so racist, a lot of what advocates of eugenics wanted amounted to attacks on racial or ethnic minorities, particularly (in America) against poor European immigrants. (I would guess against blacks, too, but I don’t know enough about the subject to say for sure.)

Didn’t McGowan state publicly that it was West Sacramento’s “turn” to have an Assemblyman? TURN?, what about who the voters think is the best candidate? Who decides whose TURN it is? … sounds like back-room political machine politics to me.

Didn’t McGowan state publicly that it was West Sacramento’s “turn” to have an Assemblyman? TURN?, what about who the voters think is the best candidate? Who decides whose TURN it is? … sounds like back-room political machine politics to me.

Didn’t McGowan state publicly that it was West Sacramento’s “turn” to have an Assemblyman? TURN?, what about who the voters think is the best candidate? Who decides whose TURN it is? … sounds like back-room political machine politics to me.

Didn’t McGowan state publicly that it was West Sacramento’s “turn” to have an Assemblyman? TURN?, what about who the voters think is the best candidate? Who decides whose TURN it is? … sounds like back-room political machine politics to me.

So let me get this straight. Bob Dunning gets mad because you wrote something about him that’s 100% wrong and then only edited the previous post rather than printing a retraction, and that’s Bob being wrongheaded and unreasonable.

However, Mariko Yamada gets mad at the Bee for writing something that was mostly true; they adjust their wording in their online and print editions without acknowledging any error, and that’s cause for alarm?

Of course there was no acknowledgment of the error and anyone who read only the initial internet version would get a misleading picture.

So let me get this straight. Bob Dunning gets mad because you wrote something about him that’s 100% wrong and then only edited the previous post rather than printing a retraction, and that’s Bob being wrongheaded and unreasonable.

However, Mariko Yamada gets mad at the Bee for writing something that was mostly true; they adjust their wording in their online and print editions without acknowledging any error, and that’s cause for alarm?

Of course there was no acknowledgment of the error and anyone who read only the initial internet version would get a misleading picture.

So let me get this straight. Bob Dunning gets mad because you wrote something about him that’s 100% wrong and then only edited the previous post rather than printing a retraction, and that’s Bob being wrongheaded and unreasonable.

However, Mariko Yamada gets mad at the Bee for writing something that was mostly true; they adjust their wording in their online and print editions without acknowledging any error, and that’s cause for alarm?

Of course there was no acknowledgment of the error and anyone who read only the initial internet version would get a misleading picture.

So let me get this straight. Bob Dunning gets mad because you wrote something about him that’s 100% wrong and then only edited the previous post rather than printing a retraction, and that’s Bob being wrongheaded and unreasonable.

However, Mariko Yamada gets mad at the Bee for writing something that was mostly true; they adjust their wording in their online and print editions without acknowledging any error, and that’s cause for alarm?

Of course there was no acknowledgment of the error and anyone who read only the initial internet version would get a misleading picture.

I understand what Rich is saying, but, generally, my experience has been that the same people who insist that people like Goethe be placed in a historial context are the same ones who squawk when someone suggests naming something after King, Chavez, Malcolm X, etc.

Just look at the people who defended Goethe over at sacbee.com

It’s pretty easy to read between the lines as to what they are really about.

By the way, I’ve never understood that there was an innocuous form of eugenics. Perhaps, my knowledge is limited, but my recollection is that it was always motivated by the idea that the lower orders and people of color was genetically inferior, and that their numbers should be controlled, if not eliminated.

I understand what Rich is saying, but, generally, my experience has been that the same people who insist that people like Goethe be placed in a historial context are the same ones who squawk when someone suggests naming something after King, Chavez, Malcolm X, etc.

Just look at the people who defended Goethe over at sacbee.com

It’s pretty easy to read between the lines as to what they are really about.

By the way, I’ve never understood that there was an innocuous form of eugenics. Perhaps, my knowledge is limited, but my recollection is that it was always motivated by the idea that the lower orders and people of color was genetically inferior, and that their numbers should be controlled, if not eliminated.

I understand what Rich is saying, but, generally, my experience has been that the same people who insist that people like Goethe be placed in a historial context are the same ones who squawk when someone suggests naming something after King, Chavez, Malcolm X, etc.

Just look at the people who defended Goethe over at sacbee.com

It’s pretty easy to read between the lines as to what they are really about.

By the way, I’ve never understood that there was an innocuous form of eugenics. Perhaps, my knowledge is limited, but my recollection is that it was always motivated by the idea that the lower orders and people of color was genetically inferior, and that their numbers should be controlled, if not eliminated.

I understand what Rich is saying, but, generally, my experience has been that the same people who insist that people like Goethe be placed in a historial context are the same ones who squawk when someone suggests naming something after King, Chavez, Malcolm X, etc.

Just look at the people who defended Goethe over at sacbee.com

It’s pretty easy to read between the lines as to what they are really about.

By the way, I’ve never understood that there was an innocuous form of eugenics. Perhaps, my knowledge is limited, but my recollection is that it was always motivated by the idea that the lower orders and people of color was genetically inferior, and that their numbers should be controlled, if not eliminated.

Our Advertisers

About Us

The Vanguard provides the Davis Community with incisive in-depth coverage of local government on a wide variety of issues. Since 2006, The Vanguard has provided Davis and Yolo County with some of the best groundbreaking news coverage on local government and policy issues affecting our city, our schools, the county, and the Sacramento Region.